How Scouting College Players Has Evolved Under Shanahan

One of the numerous problems with your line of thinking is that you're tying consistently poor results, as you aptly and correctly describe, with a consistent approach, which is just wrong.

The approach to the draft has changed drastically. Look at the sheer number of draft picks selected last April. Under Cerrato the Redskins were lucky if they made 12 picks over the course of two years.

Yes the Redskins lost games this year, but there's no denying the influx of young talent on the roster. Vinny brought us some terrible picks; Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly to name just a few. But it was the picks that weren't made that dragged us into the dregs; he ignored the trenches. Shanahan's first pick as Redskins' boss addressed that, but with so few quality linemen on the team it's no wonder it's taking the team a while.

The primary reason the team was so crappy this year was the quarterback position. We all know this. But that has NOTHING to do with the Redskins' approach in the draft. Last year they were wise not to reach for a QB who didn't have Franchise Solution written all over him, instead trading down and adding depth.

Their approach was to find a QB and build depth at every position through the draft. They didn't find the QB, so they built depth. The approach is sound, they'll go through the same process this year: find the QB, build more depth. Stating that approach needs to change seems to ignore the last 10 years of recent Redskins history.There's a reason that I feel I am right and many others are wrong, but it may just be an empty feeling because I'm doing such a poor job stating my case. So I'll try again.

I was not intending to assert a consistent approach because my argument only relies on the recognition of unchanging results. The people who disagree with the argument I am *attempting* to make necessarily must believe that the Redskins have enjoyed improved results in the last two years in the influx of quality talent as well as the on field product. If you are in agreement with that, then we're on the same page. If you recognize that the on field product hasn't improved, but believe that the roster behind the performance has actually improved, then we are in partial agreement.

With that said, there are very critical elements of the approach that have remained consistent. We still have a tendency to trade draft picks for middling veterans (McNabb in April 2010, Jammal Brown in June 2010, Hightower in July 2011). I do think they are less careless with picks, but saying the Redskins have a newfound emphasis in the draft isn't entirely accurate. Are the days of trading second rounders for Jason Taylor over? Probably. I don't think that ends the player evaluation issue or the tendency to trade picks for middling veterans, but it is a start.

I'm not sure what the greater meaning of having 12 picks in a single draft is. It seemed to me like a simple function of being willing to trade down in the first round and then again in the second round. Is that a re-emphasis in the draft? If so, what do we call the 2008 Redskins draft when the Redskins traded down there? The Redskins didn't actually pick up any picks in that trade down which certainly suggests that the guy who executed the trade may have been trading for the sake of trading, instead of team building. But it seems to me that drawing a line between between Shanahan's moves in 2011 and Cerrato's moves in 2008 is simply trying to put a label on what was functionally the same intent.

Now if we want to argue who was more effective in their execution, there is no contest. Vinny turned his first three picks into a guy who is a punt gunner for the Giants, a guy who played three seasons and is out of the league because of health, and a four and a half star tight end for a team that already had Cooley. That's a below expectation return. I feel much more confident in Kerrigan/Jenkins/Hankerson to pay off than I did on draft day with Thomas/Davis/Kelly. And ask anyone you want: I had those three career paths pegged from day one.

The other thing is I think if you compare the roster in Feburary 2009 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/2008_roster.htm) to the current one, you'd find them to be pretty similar. The biggest difference is that the Feb. 2009 one had limited depth, aging stars, and a couple of recent first round draft picks. The current one has (in Shanahan's own words) limited depth, a couple of recent first round picks, and no stars. Basically, any better position we are in now relies on the strength of the 2011 free agent class: guys like Cofield, Bowen, Chester, and Wilson. If you like all of those guys, then we almost certainly have a better roster now than in Feb. 2009. If you're taking a wait and see approach on all of those guys, than we're really at the same place we were in Feb. 2009.

It really comes down to how you rate Shanahan's acquisitions to date. If you're like NC_Skins, and pickups from the CFL make you scream "I LOVE THIS GUY" at the top of your metaphorical lungs, then yeah, our roster is better now. If you're thoroughly dumbfounded by most of the personnel moves Shanahan makes (beyond the draft because like I said before, if he can string a second good draft to the 2011 one, we're in good shape depth-wise) then I don't see enough differences in the processes of the new front office to support the idea that things are completely different now.

I am not denying the new-ness of the procedural stuff, I think we should be skeptical of how valuable it is though until the results turn around.

As always, I'm hedging somewhat as not to look totally foolish if the team starts 6-0 in mid October, but want to be on record saying that anything leading to a good season in 2012 would be a departure from the process that have led us to the last two years.

hey, G, two quick things

first, as you know, draft results tend to lag 2-3 years, and I think if we kept the other pieces the same, our first 3 picks would show vast improvement this year.

second, without a good QB, it's all moot. failing to find a QB better than rex after this many seasons is a HUGE strike against this FO. If the QB is the most important spot to fill, and you've decide to go after priorities 6-10 instead, guess what? that's a major failing. You can talk about finding the right QB all day, I don't want to hear it - I WANT TO SEE IT.

If they whiff again and end up with another terrible record, it's going to be a real tough sell that these are the right people to run this thing and that they're NFL competent.

I liked the draft, I liked the mid level FAs, but that rex grossman was the best they could do is horrible.

hey, G, two quick things

first, as you know, draft results tend to lag 2-3 years, and I think if we kept the other pieces the same, our first 3 picks would show vast improvement this year.

second, without a good QB, it's all moot. failing to find a QB better than rex after this many seasons is a HUGE strike against this FO. If the QB is the most important spot to fill, and you've decide to go after priorities 6-10 instead, guess what? that's a major failing. You can talk about finding the right QB all day, I don't want to hear it - I WANT TO SEE IT.

If they whiff again and end up with another terrible record, it's going to be a real tough sell that these are the right people to run this thing and that they're NFL competent.

I liked the draft, I liked the mid level FAs, but that rex grossman was the best they could do is horrible.I feel like I've been slower and more patient than most to criticize the quarterback situation. I, like you, think a lot of defenses for heading into season two with Rex Grossman and John Beck somehow after spending a second and fourth round pick to shore up the position are just complete bunk.

I have in the past advocated for putting the QB situation on the back burner while you build the rest of the team. I think, clearly, the Redskins haven't done a good job overall building the rest of the team up in the last two years but like you said, another good draft and things will probably get better in time. You can't just assume this upcoming draft class will fix all the wrongs of the last two years, but it certainly could.

In a lot of ways, the success of the 2011 draft is going to hinge on the 2012 draft. If we bomb in the 2012 draft, lose, and Shanahan gets fired, the next coach isn't going to come in saying things like he feels getting Jarvis Jenkins back is like having a top ten draft pick. I really like Hankerson, but he's going to have to prove the first round grade I gave him on the field this year. If he doesn't, there's no guarantee he'll get another chance in 2013.

I will never tire of talking about the future of the Washington Redskins. What I am tired of is people telling me things are different now. Just stop talking. Show me. Bring evidence or don't waste the time.

I'm sorry Tripp but I have to really rip you for saying it's the same front office, because that makes no sense. Is it the same scouting group, sure. But when people refer to the "front office", they are referring to the person(s) who are ultimately making the player acquisition decisions.

Scouting departments are front office support people, not decision makers. They evaluate the talent. They evaluated it for Cerrato and now the evaluate the talent for Shanahan. But that's a huge delineation.

Shanahan, his son, and Haslett are defining and communicating the type of players they are looking for, while Campbell and his team go find them. In the past, Campbell and his team would go find them, and Vinny would end up picking whoever he thought would work best for Zorn.

But Vinny and Zorn weren't communicating, and it's clear in this article that Campbell was saying he wasn't getting much in the way of direction from the decision makers at the top. So it's no wonder Vinny went with the BPA strategy when he was in charge - the communication was so poor between coach, GM, and scouts that he didn't even adequately grasp what the team needed.

Scouts are only as good as the decision makers they support. You can provide all the quality analysis in the world, but if the decision makers can't communicate well enough to put the analysis to good use, then shitty decisions get made.

I think with the way Shanahan is making better use of Campbell's abilities, it bodes well for improved drafting and team composition going forward.

It takes a tedious massaging of logic to say solid process is there without solid results. We know it's a different process now. Nobody, period, "knows" it's a better process.

Our current status is still early in the rebuilding process. Arguably, it's no further along than the day Mike became coach. It appears we're still searching for a quality, dependable left tackle. The WR corp is still unimpressive. The defensive secondary still underperforms.

Similarities between prior to Mike v now...solid defensive front seven. Top TE talent. Low-threat passing game.

Biggest difference between then and now: a QB who can manage most games and win a couple/few over a season.

So to recap: our defense is not quite as good as before Mike but basically the same; our passing attack is still pretty harmless; our running game is marginally better; but most importantly we threw out Jason Campbell and didn't do anything whatsoever at QB for two full seasons.

If Mike and Kyle "find" their QB now we'll never know how close they were to total failure. If they don't find their QB now we'll be about 5-11 again, and the process argument should be long over.

what's really silly is how much better we'd be with jason campbell and carlos rogers vs rex and d hall. well, campbell may just be a lateral move, but he has a lot less "oh ..ish" moments.

The other thing is I think if you compare the roster in Feburary 2009 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/2008_roster.htm) to the current one, you'd find them to be pretty similar. The biggest difference is that the Feb. 2009 one had limited depth, aging stars, and a couple of recent first round draft picks. The current one has (in Shanahan's own words) limited depth, a couple of recent first round picks, and no stars. Basically, any better position we are in now relies on the strength of the 2011 free agent class: guys like Cofield, Bowen, Chester, and Wilson. If you like all of those guys, then we almost certainly have a better roster now than in Feb. 2009. If you're taking a wait and see approach on all of those guys, than we're really at the same place we were in Feb. 2009.

It really comes down to how you rate Shanahan's acquisitions to date. If you're like NC_Skins, and pickups from the CFL make you scream "I LOVE THIS GUY" at the top of your metaphorical lungs, then yeah, our roster is better now. If you're thoroughly dumbfounded by most of the personnel moves Shanahan makes (beyond the draft because like I said before, if he can string a second good draft to the 2011 one, we're in good shape depth-wise).

You keep harping about his acquisitions to date, but yet refuse to understand the restricted free agency his first year and the whole lockout the second year. Exactly what FA would you have liked him to grab Vinny style? Nnamdi? Holmes? Yeah, overpaid and did what for their teams? He went after Yanda, Jenkins, and a few others but they chose other teams. Should he have threw the Brinks truck at him? The guys he brought in have been good, and they are young which makes it all the better.

I think Shanahan has done a incredible job with the personnel with him being limited with the market his first two years. You on the other hand believe he should be pulling these phantom players out of his ass to make this a better team. He's getting players in here that fit the system and that have the character he's looking for.

This team got much younger during Shanahan's tenure as compared to being one of the oldest teams that didn't produce mind you.

what's really silly is how much better we'd be with jason campbell and carlos rogers vs rex and d hall. well, campbell may just be a lateral move, but he has a lot less "oh ..ish" moments.

Sure, if you wanted passes under 10 yards and a QB that had worse pocket presence than Rex Grossman. Campbell continously held the ball too long and never knew how to move around in the pocket worth a damn. He was called Captain Checkdown for a reason. The year he went to Oakland, guess which player I picked up in Fantasy Football? Yup, the Raiders tight end Zack Miller.(at the time) I knew exactly how those games were going to go. No yards to the WRs and mostly to the TE. I was right and he helped me win a ton of games by the way.

We aren't even going to go down the Carlos Rogers avenue again. Much like Haynesworth, Carlos can play when he decides to play. Since it's a contract year, he's playing his ass off for that big pay day. He never played like that while he was here.

Sure, if you wanted passes under 10 yards and a QB that had worse pocket presence than Rex Grossman. Campbell continously held the ball too long and never knew how to move around in the pocket worth a damn. He was called Captain Checkdown for a reason. The year he went to Oakland, guess which player I picked up in Fantasy Football? Yup, the Raiders tight end Zack Miller.(at the time) I knew exactly how those games were going to go. No yards to the WRs and mostly to the TE. I was right and he helped me win a ton of games by the way.

We aren't even going to go down the Carlos Rogers avenue again. Much like Haynesworth, Carlos can play when he decides to play. Since it's a contract year, he's playing his ass off for that big pay day. He never played like that while he was here.

I agree with your assessment Rogers' situation and honestly I am glad he is gone. No way he has the same production with us like he did with the 49ers. And he was pretty much gone.

In terms of Campbell, I don't know how much better we would have been with him, however I know that we would not have wasted a 2nd rounder on McNabb had MS kept him.

There's a reason that I feel I am right and many others are wrong, but it may just be an empty feeling because I'm doing such a poor job stating my case. So I'll try again.

I was not intending to assert a consistent approach because my argument only relies on the recognition of unchanging results. The people who disagree with the argument I am *attempting* to make necessarily must believe that the Redskins have enjoyed improved results in the last two years in the influx of quality talent as well as the on field product. If you are in agreement with that, then we're on the same page. If you recognize that the on field product hasn't improved, but believe that the roster behind the performance has actually improved, then we are in partial agreement.

With that said, there are very critical elements of the approach that have remained consistent. We still have a tendency to trade draft picks for middling veterans (McNabb in April 2010, Jammal Brown in June 2010, Hightower in July 2011). I do think they are less careless with picks, but saying the Redskins have a newfound emphasis in the draft isn't entirely accurate. Are the days of trading second rounders for Jason Taylor over? Probably. I don't think that ends the player evaluation issue or the tendency to trade picks for middling veterans, but it is a start.

I'm not sure what the greater meaning of having 12 picks in a single draft is. It seemed to me like a simple function of being willing to trade down in the first round and then again in the second round. Is that a re-emphasis in the draft? If so, what do we call the 2008 Redskins draft when the Redskins traded down there? The Redskins didn't actually pick up any picks in that trade down which certainly suggests that the guy who executed the trade may have been trading for the sake of trading, instead of team building. But it seems to me that drawing a line between between Shanahan's moves in 2011 and Cerrato's moves in 2008 is simply trying to put a label on what was functionally the same intent.

Now if we want to argue who was more effective in their execution, there is no contest. Vinny turned his first three picks into a guy who is a punt gunner for the Giants, a guy who played three seasons and is out of the league because of health, and a four and a half star tight end for a team that already had Cooley. That's a below expectation return. I feel much more confident in Kerrigan/Jenkins/Hankerson to pay off than I did on draft day with Thomas/Davis/Kelly. And ask anyone you want: I had those three career paths pegged from day one.

The other thing is I think if you compare the roster in Feburary 2009 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/2008_roster.htm) to the current one, you'd find them to be pretty similar. The biggest difference is that the Feb. 2009 one had limited depth, aging stars, and a couple of recent first round draft picks. The current one has (in Shanahan's own words) limited depth, a couple of recent first round picks, and no stars. Basically, any better position we are in now relies on the strength of the 2011 free agent class: guys like Cofield, Bowen, Chester, and Wilson. If you like all of those guys, then we almost certainly have a better roster now than in Feb. 2009. If you're taking a wait and see approach on all of those guys, than we're really at the same place we were in Feb. 2009.

It really comes down to how you rate Shanahan's acquisitions to date. If you're like NC_Skins, and pickups from the CFL make you scream "I LOVE THIS GUY" at the top of your metaphorical lungs, then yeah, our roster is better now. If you're thoroughly dumbfounded by most of the personnel moves Shanahan makes (beyond the draft because like I said before, if he can string a second good draft to the 2011 one, we're in good shape depth-wise) then I don't see enough differences in the processes of the new front office to support the idea that things are completely different now.

I am not denying the new-ness of the procedural stuff, I think we should be skeptical of how valuable it is though until the results turn around.

As always, I'm hedging somewhat as not to look totally foolish if the team starts 6-0 in mid October, but want to be on record saying that anything leading to a good season in 2012 would be a departure from the process that have led us to the last two years.

You're exhausting and exasperating, GTripp. The bolded part is the entire purpose of this thread.

Draft results look better under Shanahan. And I (and others) are at least partially attributing that to a better working relationship between boss and scouting department.

In other words, the scouting department was never the problem. It was the knucklehead making the decisions.

Sheesh.

I have read every post in this thread and still can't paraphrase your argument Tripp...what exactly are you trying to say? Try and say it in less than 250 words.